Faces
August 1st 2010 08:38
If you're filming a person, but are bored with faces, what do you go for?
In porn, you might do genitals or breasts; and there's also the option of not visually recording the person at all, but only their voice. For instance, there's a surprising move people sometimes use where the camera shifts sideways, slowly, and shoots empty space or blank wall -- for instance, in "Taxi Driver", when De Niro is in the middle of a painful phone call, or, notoriously, in "Reservoir Dogs".
But say you're not doing porn, and you're not looking to film wall. What would you go for?
In this case, I think most people would be drawn towards hands or feet.
Why?
Well:
-- they're extremities of the body, and are the natural lead-ins to filming the rest of it;
-- they're what we use to do things with; they have life; they're not boring like a back or a belly;
-- they have symbolisms, personal and cultural -- almost everyone has had one;
-- they express personality and history -- the wear and tear of shoes, the elegance of a hand; in a sense, we're all palm-readers;
-- we're interested in them as familiar things defamiliarised;
-- we have an interest in them as somewhat forbidden fruit -- they're around us all day in plain view, but, apart from our own, it's not many of us who get a good look at them.
In addition to these reasons, there's the simple fact that, with feet especially, some people have sexual interests and pleasures.
One of those people, it seems, is Quentin Tarantino.
If you doubt me...
Just for the record, why film faces in the first place?
Well:
-- Faces are the most expressive and the most varied and detailed part of the body, especially when compared with back or belly;
-- They give us the most information about character, thoughts, emotions, intentions, knowledge -- both human faces, and the faces of non-human animals;
-- It's genetic -- we naturally look to them. Babies, when they've learnt to differentiate objects, will naturally look to them. Cats and dogs will naturally look to them;
-- We find them beautiful and fascinatingly repulsive. Again, this is probably partly genetic. It's said of some people that they have the sort of harmonious faces that make babies smile;
-- They're replete with symbolism -- both as a whole, and when reduced to parts -- eyes, ears, mouth, hair...
-- Society reinforces and compounds any natural tendencies, training us to go for, interpret, compare, evaluate faces;
-- We expect faces in our media. Compare our inundation with close-ups -- in photographs, art, films, television -- with something like ancient Greek theatre, where actors wore masks of unchanging expressions, or Kabuki theatre;
-- Many people feel uncomfortable, disorientated, vulnerable or just plain curious, if they can't see someone's face -- for instance, when it's hidden behind a burqa.
In porn, you might do genitals or breasts; and there's also the option of not visually recording the person at all, but only their voice. For instance, there's a surprising move people sometimes use where the camera shifts sideways, slowly, and shoots empty space or blank wall -- for instance, in "Taxi Driver", when De Niro is in the middle of a painful phone call, or, notoriously, in "Reservoir Dogs".
But say you're not doing porn, and you're not looking to film wall. What would you go for?
In this case, I think most people would be drawn towards hands or feet.
Why?
Well:
-- they're extremities of the body, and are the natural lead-ins to filming the rest of it;
-- they're what we use to do things with; they have life; they're not boring like a back or a belly;
-- they have symbolisms, personal and cultural -- almost everyone has had one;
-- they express personality and history -- the wear and tear of shoes, the elegance of a hand; in a sense, we're all palm-readers;
-- we're interested in them as familiar things defamiliarised;
-- we have an interest in them as somewhat forbidden fruit -- they're around us all day in plain view, but, apart from our own, it's not many of us who get a good look at them.
In addition to these reasons, there's the simple fact that, with feet especially, some people have sexual interests and pleasures.
One of those people, it seems, is Quentin Tarantino.
If you doubt me...
***
Just for the record, why film faces in the first place?
Well:
-- Faces are the most expressive and the most varied and detailed part of the body, especially when compared with back or belly;
-- They give us the most information about character, thoughts, emotions, intentions, knowledge -- both human faces, and the faces of non-human animals;
-- It's genetic -- we naturally look to them. Babies, when they've learnt to differentiate objects, will naturally look to them. Cats and dogs will naturally look to them;
-- We find them beautiful and fascinatingly repulsive. Again, this is probably partly genetic. It's said of some people that they have the sort of harmonious faces that make babies smile;
-- They're replete with symbolism -- both as a whole, and when reduced to parts -- eyes, ears, mouth, hair...
-- Society reinforces and compounds any natural tendencies, training us to go for, interpret, compare, evaluate faces;
-- We expect faces in our media. Compare our inundation with close-ups -- in photographs, art, films, television -- with something like ancient Greek theatre, where actors wore masks of unchanging expressions, or Kabuki theatre;
-- Many people feel uncomfortable, disorientated, vulnerable or just plain curious, if they can't see someone's face -- for instance, when it's hidden behind a burqa.
| 106 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog